SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

Hmmzis

Oh dear, that didn't go well at all. :mad:

_Tombstone_

Hmmzis wrote: »

Oh dear, that didn't go well at all. :mad:

SpaceX just tweeted to announce that the craft did indeed “experience an anomaly on ascent.”

Thats one word for it, FS, they're all hopeless.


I forget but ISS supplies are gonna be seriously low now, gonna have to bring some of them down now.

SpaceX Rocket Explodes Moments After Launch
SpaceX’s CRS-7 Mission Ends In Catastrophic Failure, Loss Of Vehicle
SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Breaks Up After Launch With Space Station Cargo

thecommander

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

I forget but ISS supplies are gonna be seriously low now, gonna have to bring some of them down now.

Progress supply flight on Friday. Only gets hairy if something happens that.

_Tombstone_

thecommander wrote: »

Progress supply flight on Friday. Only gets hairy if something happens that.

wayhey, they made it up.:rolleyes:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/space-rockets-idUSL8N0ZJ1ED20150703

_Tombstone_

SpaceX's Rocket Crash Came at a Really Bad Time

But an internal investigation would likely be just the first obstacle the company will face before it gets the final go-ahead to fly NASA astronauts to the ISS and launch military satellites. Coming back from a disaster like this is rarely as simple as performing an internal investigation and handing it over the relevant government authorities—there will be Congressional hearings and political grandstanding to overcome, as well.

Before the crash, some members of Congress had already asked NASA to reconfigure its Space Launch System rocket, currently planned to go to a deep-space asteroid and to Mars, to be able to service the ISS because some lawmakers believe commercial companies can’t reliably get to the ISS. Navigating those politics won’t be easy, either.

_Tombstone_

SpaceX working toward Falcon 9 diagnosis ahead of treatment

Capt'n Midnight

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

SpaceX's Rocket Crash Came at a Really Bad Time

Before the crash, some members of Congress had already asked NASA to reconfigure its Space Launch System rocket, currently planned to go to a deep-space asteroid and to Mars, to be able to service the ISS

:eek:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

SLS launched once a year will be six times as expensive as a Falcon 9 expendable launch and 15 times as expensive as a Falcon Heavy expendable launch.

Yes in theory a 70 tonne launch could keep the ISS stocked up for ages. But it'll be a long time before it's ready to launch. And even longer for the 130 tonne version. And a failure would be very expensive and take ages for a replacement.

Note:

None of the new solid rocket booster casings for the SLS would be reused. At any rate, re-use via remanufacturing only saves about 20% of the cost of brand new solid booster segments. There also seems to be no effort to make the proposed advanced liquid fuel boosters reusable either.

Unless reuse saves a lot more than that it's probably not worth the extra risks. They lost a shuttle by trying to save a small fraction on the cheapest part of the launch system.

_Tombstone_

NASA are a dopey shower.

The spacex crash has cost them €110 million. They still have to pay SpaceX 80% of the cost for the failed launch and their was no insurance on the cargo. Same carry on with Orbital Sciences failure few months back.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-space-station-hearing-20150709-story.html

nokia69

I don't think NASA or the DOD insure any of their launches, they are not a commercial company, it must work out cheaper in the long run

also spaceX may be able to make up for the loss by sending a little more cargo on future CRS flights

Hmmzis

So it was supposedly a failed strut/bolt that held one of the He bottles in place. Strut broke, He bottle broke loose pinching a manifold line in the process, release of He too much for relief valve, boom.

Source - NSF coverage of the press conference.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37739.320

Apparently those struts are among a few of the components in the F9 that are sourced from the outside.

nokia69

that sounds like an easy and quick fix

hope they fly again soon

shedweller

nokia69 wrote: »

that sounds like an easy and quick fix

hope they fly again soon

And So Say We All!

Oh, and outsourcing isn't the be all and end all it is currently portrayed as.
Food for thought eh?

nokia69

shedweller wrote: »

And So Say We All!

Oh, and outsourcing isn't the be all and end all it is currently portrayed as.
Food for thought eh?

I think it all just depends on the cost, a simple strut/bolt is pretty cheap so making it yourself can't result in a big saving

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-elon-musk-willed-spacex-into-making-the-cheapest-rockets-ever-created

Vance relays a story from 2004, in which Musk asked Steve Davis, now SpaceX's director of advanced projects, to source an actuator that would help the second stage of the Falcon 1 rocket steer itself.

"Naturally, [Davis] went out to find some suppliers who could make an electro-mechanical actuator for him. He got a quote back for $120,000," Vance wrote. "'Elon laughed,' Davis said. 'He said, 'That part is no more complicated than a garage door opener. Your budget is $5,000. Go make it work

now thats a big saving

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-elon-musk-willed-spacex-into-making-the-cheapest-rockets-ever-created[/URL

Now, when SpaceX says it can launch a military rocket for $90 million compared to ULA's $380 million, you just kind of nod your head and move on.

ULA is a bad comparison. Atlas is using Russian engines and lots of pre existing tech and getting top dollar for it.

Then again Orbital are taking the proverbial as Antares is pretty much a rebadged import.

NASA chipped in $288 million for early development plus an additional $1.9 billion contract for eight resupply missions to be completed by 2016.

Orbital’s approach to the ISS resupply problem was to design a rocket that would utilize existing, proven technology from a variety of subcontractors in order to minimize costs (this is in marked contrast to SpaceX, which builds many of its components for the Falcon 9 in-house in its own attempt to save money). Orbital assembles the Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft using hardware from manufacturers around the world: Cygnus is built in Italy, the Antares’ first stage was developed and is built in Ukraine, and the first stage engines (the AJ-26s) are upgraded-but-still-Soviet-era hardware supplied by California-based Aerojet Rocketdyne..

BUT these comparisons are moot when you look at costs elsewhere


Meanwhile in India
ULA's $380 per launch is close to what India is spending overall on developing the GSLV Mk. 3 And their successful scaled back suborbital test of a capsule cost $24m

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ULA is a bad comparison. Atlas is using Russian engines and lots of pre existing tech and getting top dollar for it.

well kind of, but ULA are in direct competition with SpaceX for DOD and NASA launches

ULA is a perfect example of what happens when there is no competition, without spaceX coming along they would never be developing a new rocket

the next ULA rocket will be better and cheaper than the Atlas or Delta

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BUT these comparisons are moot when you look at costs elsewhere


Meanwhile in India
ULA's $380 per launch is close to what India is spending overall on developing the GSLV Mk. 3 And their successful scaled back suborbital test of a capsule cost $24m

well AFAIK it cost spaceX about 200million to develop the falcon 1, falcon 9 and dragon, which is pretty impressive when you consider that spaceX have to pay
their engineers California wages, also the long term price of a falcon 9R launch is less than 10million, will the Indians match that


http://spacenews.com/guest-blog-new-sputnik/

The Falcon 9 medium-lift booster (capable of launching 10 tons to orbit) and Dragon capsule (potentially capable of being upgraded to transport up to seven astronauts) were created on a combined budget on the order of $200 million. In 2009, SpaceX’s Elon Musk told the Augustine commission that he could develop a heavy-lift vehicle for $2.5 billion. The commission chose to ignore him, instead insisting that development of a heavy-lift vehicle would cost $36 billion - See more at: http://spacenews.com/guest-blog-new-sputnik/#sthash.KM6aGzS2.dpuf

_Tombstone_

Falcon Heavy delayed for another year.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/21/first-flight-of-falcon-heavy-delayed-again/

nokia69

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

That’s why Elon Musk wants to put a million people on Mars.

Why a million people? Because that’s Musk’s rough estimate for the minimum number of people it would take to create a completely self-sustaining population

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

Look at the size of it!!







EXCLUSIVE: Billionaire Elon Musk endured psychological torture from his father, told his first wife she was fired and then married the 22-year-old VIRGIN he met at a London club telling her he 'wanted to show her his rocket'

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Elon Musk backs Nasa plan to send SpaceX capsule on sample return mission in 2020

The 'Red Dragon' project was developed by a team at Nasa.

It would grab samples collected by the space agency's 202 rover and return them to Earth.


The sample-return effort would keep costs and complexity down by using SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket and a modified version of the company's robotic Dragon cargo capsule, the concept's developers say.

Red Dragon is 'technically feasible with the use of these emerging commercial technologies, coupled with technologies that already exist,' Andy Gonzales, of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, said during a presentation with the space agency's Future In-Space Operations (FISO) working group.

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

NASA are a dopey shower.

The spacex crash has cost them €110 million. They still have to pay SpaceX 80% of the cost for the failed launch and their was no insurance on the cargo. Same carry on with Orbital Sciences failure few months back.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-space-station-hearing-20150709-story.html

NASAs Inspector General released a report today on Orbital Sciences progress since the kaboom. They're under contract/time pressure for 5 more launches so they are gonna use United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket for the next two and then the tweaked Antares for two more. 4 Launches, the plan is to jam in the Cargo of 5 into 4. The Inspector reckons not enough testing will have been done on the Atlas/cygnus cargo craft mishmash or the Antares and aint over the moon with the drop to 4 launches either.

Whatever about this, heres the best bit. NASA ended up paying 5 Million to repair the launch pad instead of Orbital Sciences Insurance paying it.:eek:

Dopey Shower.


As a result of these findings, the inspector general made a list of recommendations NASA should follow to address the report's concerns. For example, the report called for Orbital to do more reviews of the new Antares rocket before it launches. The inspector general says Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration, agreed to follow most of these recommendations. However, Gerstenmaier ignored a recommendation on how NASA could better ensure that insurance claims pay for facility damages, instead of the space agency footing the bill.:eek::eek:


Someone explain this^^^


http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9348509/nasa-orbital-sciences-rocket-launch-timeline-assessment

shedweller

Connections, cronyism?
When you deal with big money its usually one or both (or more??) of those.

_Tombstone_

Can you land SpaceXs Falcon 9??


https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/76866912/


It's a little game. Up/Down/Left/Right and H all thats needed to play.


I'm not surprised they haven't landed one IRL yet, it's flippin hard.

The One Doctor

Yeah, but it took 30 tries.

nokia69

Upgraded Falcon 9 engines

_Tombstone_

Musk is going on Holiday soon. Last break he took his rocket exploded, break before that orbital sciences rocket exploded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/09/29/elon-musk-needs-a-vacation/

_Tombstone_

SpaceX preparing for Static Fire test on first Full Thrust Falcon 9 First Stage



But SpaceX are also getting sued (for the umteenth time, I didn't know this) for treating their employees like sh1te.

Class action lawsuit in the works with a jury requested for non payment of overtime, refusing meal and rest breaks. Typical rotten corporate America treating the man like ****e in favour of the greenbacks.


https://twitter.com/andyjayhawk/status/656893010609905664

nokia69

shedweller

nokia69 wrote: »

Wow. They dont mess about going through all the different settings do they?!

Capt'n Midnight

shedweller wrote: »

Wow. They dont mess about going through all the different settings do they?!

To save weight you don't make rocket engines bigger than they need to be so they tend to use a bit of welly.

more on the fuel mix
http://www.astronautix.com/props/n2o4mmh.htm#more